Hacker News Board Hacker News, browsed like a classic message board
Live data from Hacker News

Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

counterpunch.org

Post reply on HN
Print view View original

91–100 of 153 posts

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#91

Post by [deleted] »

vladharbuz wrote: post #54
solar-ice wrote: post #48

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Part of the issue (in countries where you're not liable to be shot or accused by the police of running a cult or what-have-you) is that worker co-ops do not generally have access to significant capital or loans from VCs and banks which are scared of them, so cannot usually spend outside their means to grow - while companies that mesh well with current financialised society can. As a result, co-ops need to grow differ…

I'm very interested in this point! Do you think there is something about the structure of co-operatives that intrinsically makes them less attractive to investors? Or do you think that the fear you mentioned is just a result of them being currently unconventional, and this problem will be fixed once we culturally become more open to alternative ways of organising work?

[deleted]

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#92

Post by eternalban »

m0llusk wrote: post #81

This is missing a lot of history. There was a lot of Anarchist violence in the 30s that led to things like the Inheritance Tax, now repealed. Up until Reagan it was possible to live reasonably well and even raise a family on a minimum wage. Now even middle class people can barely make it and are vulnerable to large medical bills. The past was not impossible. It actually happened. And we should be able to use that exp…

There is another bit of history that possibly informs the change. ~Up until Reagan, US needed to present an alternative to communist and socialist systems. Post USSR collapse, 'history ended', and that's when the neo-liberal genie was let out of the bottle. This is a somewhat cynical view, but imo not an unreasonable speculation.

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#93

Post by refurb »

noughts wrote: post #59
refurb wrote: post #40

Earlier quoted context omitted.

You got on the one hand, the Open Free Market System in America, you have on the other hand, the exact opposite, the closed, controlled, command economy of the Soviet Union… The Chinese tried the Communist model, with their own modifications, and it failed! And they have admitted that it failed. The kids today talk as if these things have never happened. They haven’t learned!

I agree that the last thing we should do is to go back to the Soviet Union, but its relationship to many of the alternatives available today is a common misunderstanding. The Soviet Union was described as "socialist" simply to cover up the awful inequality and abuse of power that was at the centre of it. The Soviet Union was basically the opposite of socialism, and this is easy to understand if you compare it to the…

My response was a bit - tongue in cheek as that's a quote from Singapore's PM during an election campaign. His point was if you remove the competitive aspects - the individualistic ones, the system grinds to a halt.

The USSR and China were abusive because you need to be abusive to force people to give over labour for which they don't own the proceeds of. Small time farmers in Vietnam had riots over the collectivization of their land into communes (and the "Communists" there dropped it in favor of capitalism). These are subsistence-level farms who can't read or write - yet they understood the injustice of taking away one's freedom to live of the fruits of your own labour.

A far better solution is to separate the economic system with the political one (which communism tries to meld). There is nothing that says you can't have a capitalist system that protects worker rights, or that heavily taxes and redistributes.

Rather than killing the goose that lays the golden eggs, figure out how best to use the eggs to the benefit of everyone.

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#94

Post by eternalban »

onlyrealcuzzo wrote: post #5

If you took all the income from the billionaires and distributed it evenly, the average person wouldn't even get a 2% raise. If you took all the wealth and distributed it evenly, the a average person wouldn't even get $500. In the US - Billionaires have $1.3T: https://americansfortaxfairness.org/billionaires/ That's ~$3880 per US person. Globally, there's a lot more people, and countries aren't as rich as the US. Eve…

> If you took all the income from the billionaires and distributed it evenly, the average person wouldn't even get a 2% raise. If you took all the wealth and distributed it evenly, the a average person wouldn't even get $500.

This is missing the forest for the trees. Immense concentration of wealth affords the power to significantly affect change and mold society. This power in the hands of the few is the actual issue, given that social stratum is strongly correlated with political outlook and mores.

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#95

Post by incomingpain »

The unionization factor is interesting. It's not a zero-sum game. The more everyone does, the better everyone is.

Due to egalitarian efforts getting women and others into the workforce it produced a large surplus of labour.

There was also very clever work by China in creating very low tax economic zones which created globalization and moved low skilled jobs out of the developed world. Also creating a surplus of labour.

Unionization doesnt work well when there's so much surplus of labour. Worse yet, incompetent males were displaced from the workplace by competent others. Which created a net-negative growth on population. Therefore population decline is coming.

The thing is with the population pyramid, the decline isnt even coming yet it's a productivity drop relative to the boomers retiring and the boomers are woefully under invested for retirement.

So we are going to have a transition quickly from labour surplus to depression level labour shortage. That already started, this is the antiwork movement. They suddenly probably for the first time feel no labour surplus and are excited to be treated properly by shitty employers.

The funny thing about severe shortages, unionization is still lame. You dont want to have your salary and benefits limited by union process. You want to job hop for better profits.

The really good thing about this productivity drop, the powers that be will put money into tech to boost productivity. Self-checkouts, atms, etc. No humans needed.

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#96

Post by OrangeMonkey »

catlifeonmars wrote: post #87
OrangeMonkey wrote: post #47

Earlier quoted context omitted.

This is diving into a conversation that may be best not had on HNN. @Dang - delete this if you like man, no offense taken. I don't think the goal is equity but equality. At least, that is my goal. I want the lowliest shoeshine boy to have the opportunity to do amazing things. I make no apologies for the country I was born or the circumstances. I grew up on a poor farm in a broken trailer surrounded by my backwoods re…

You are equating work with the production of value (in some way shape or form). However, machines can till the earth.

Whos sweat and blood was used to make the machine that was taken from him and given to someone else?

Look, at some point we may be in a true post-scarcity environment where we can fabricate food/clothing/items with just energy from an abundant resource. At that time, I will consider this question anew.

Until then, I just don't think it has legs.

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#97

Post by refurb »

m0llusk wrote: post #81

This is missing a lot of history. There was a lot of Anarchist violence in the 30s that led to things like the Inheritance Tax, now repealed. Up until Reagan it was possible to live reasonably well and even raise a family on a minimum wage. Now even middle class people can barely make it and are vulnerable to large medical bills. The past was not impossible. It actually happened. And we should be able to use that exp…

Up until Reagan it was possible to live reasonably well and even raise a family on a minimum wage

At least according my grandparent's that's an absolute falsehood. Unless you assume "live well" in a 600 sq. ft. house doing manual labour in the sun and having your spouse take care of grandma who is dying of cancer for which there is no treatment.

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#98

Post by js8 »

lr4444lr wrote: post #16
vladharbuz wrote: post #4

Earlier quoted context omitted.

Why do you assume the only options are being controlled by a different self-serving employer, or having the government regulate everything? After all, shouldn't those who actually form the workforce of a company and shape the products and services it offers be in control? Why not have those who actually do the work collectively control the fate of the company, instead of having to hand over that power to someone else…

Nothing significant stops people from forming worker collectives. Maybe it's telling that they're so uncommon?

Actually, there are significant legal obstacles. It took around 200 years to create good legal framework and regulations around publicly-traded corporations, so that for example, when you invest, you can make sure you won't get scammed. (And it's still not perfect.)

Worker collectives, because they are uncommon, and do not operate under well-known legal framework, face significant obstacles in, for example, getting loans.

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#99

Post by vladharbuz »

jasode wrote: post #76
vladharbuz wrote: post #54

Earlier quoted context omitted.

I'm very interested in this point! Do you think there is something about the structure of co-operatives that intrinsically makes them less attractive to investors? Or do you think that the fear you mentioned is just a result of them being currently unconventional, and this problem will be fixed once we culturally become more open to alternative ways of organising work?

>there is something about the structure of co-operatives that intrinsically makes them less attractive to investors? It's the intrinsic structure of being owned by the workers that makes co-operatives less financially attractive to outside investors. My previous comment about why: https://news.ycombinator.com/item?id=11166080 Co-operatives also have to compete in the marketplace (compete in both the costs & revenue)…

This is an interesting answer, thank you! I agree that co-ops using only funds contributed by their members will struggle to compete with companies that receive large investments. However, the bigger question is why investors would not want to invest in a co-operative. As far as I can tell, you're saying that investment in co-operatives is intrinsically less attractive because investors would obtain some kind of fixed return, as opposed to permanent ownership of shares in the company. Is that what you meant?

If so, the question that remains is a relatively open one. Let's say that, for the sake of argument, we reached the conclusion that organising companies as co-operatives would bring considerable social benefits to the majority of people compared to the current way or organising work. If this were true, what would have to be changed so as to make them a reasonable option? Perhaps our values of prioritising economic values over social value? Perhaps regulations on shareholders?

Yanis Varoufakis proposes a system that answers this question in Another Now [0], but I'm also curious to hear other answers.

[0]: https://www.goodreads.com/book/show/49098225-another-now

Re: Work, Work, Work – So a Few Can Be Rich

#100

Post by badcppdev »

refurb wrote: post #40
snidane wrote: post #7

Another Marxist in a new coat. Good analysis, wrong prescription. Been there, done that, ended up badly. Look into Georgism, that's where the cool kids are now. You don't need a revolution, you need a minor shift in tax code that you haven't thought of yet. It's not the problem of your employer that prices around you increase, so don't make them a villain that you can't pay your rent. Go complain to your slumlord for…

You got on the one hand, the Open Free Market System in America, you have on the other hand, the exact opposite, the closed, controlled, command economy of the Soviet Union… The Chinese tried the Communist model, with their own modifications, and it failed! And they have admitted that it failed. The kids today talk as if these things have never happened. They haven’t learned!

Why are you saying there are only two alternatives? Do you strongly believe that?

The author of the article and the related book is 76 years old. Are you calling him a kid?

Post reply on HN